- Last post
- 37 Responses
I designed a portfolio website for a friend in indesign because I'm used to it, and it gives me much better layout control and it's better for type.
for a programmer, do I need to manually convert to a PSD, or can I File > "export for dreamweaver"?
it didn't answer my question completely. I was hoping someone else knew something.
DO NOT USE INDESIGN FOR WEB DESIGN
[end of thread]
Just use File > Export for Dreamweaver. Should be fine.
^ how's the quality of the html and css code if you export to dreamweaver? i remember it used to be filled with unnecessary junk when you export from sliced layers in photoshop.
- Proper align, spacing and distribute tools
- Pixel snapped vector shape support + shortcut key to re-snap vectors to pixels if they ever do slip, no more doing this manually like in Photoshop.
- Pages and the ability to export those to flats in about 3 clicks
- Definable text and layer effect styles
- Flash style symbols/smart objects with 9-slice re-scalling
- Copy and paste appearance/effects from one object to another
- http://johndunning.com/fireworks… < This is life changing for web layouts
- Non-destructive gaussian blur as a layer effect
- Stackable re-orderable layer effects
- Copy and paste from Illustrator preserving vectors
- REDEFINEABLE ROUNDED CORNERS ON ALL RECTANGLES
Adobe are a bunch of bellends for not pushing this program better, it makes Photoshop look like a joke for web design.
talk to your developer and ask him what he's most confortable with. Anyone in here will give you HIS prefered method, what matters here is what you and your developer prefer.
This is the new Mac vs Pc, Flash vs HTML5 topic.
This is like a client from hell.
don't. it's retarded. it's not 1:1 and you should be shot.
Can you create PDF and then use acrobat to export as HTML?
I don't know if it's because people does not know how to use ID, but it needs to be said, ID is NOT a print only software, it is fully capable and perfect for pixel work too. Maybe you're frustrated because of shitty designers presenting shitty work on it because they come from print and don't know better, but that's not the software fault.
quick examples to illustrate:
- + STYLES for EVERYTHING,
Master Pages, etc, etc,ESKEMA
- that actually helped, thank you! i still hate indesign for webdoesnotexist
- InDesign is superior to PS in every way for layout out and designing a website.monospaced
- ok. i use illustrator!doesnotexist
- cool story brofadein11
- when indesign first came out... i understood that it was for web AND print. it was used for both. good luck!ohhhhhsnap
- + STYLES for EVERYTHING,
Just because it can doesn't mean it should.
The web mode is a recent hack added to what's a 13 year old print design app.
It might be superior to PS, but PS was a fucking stupid thing to design web pages with in the first place. Should be using something built from the ground up with web design in mind.
if doing web design in fireworks is like swimming with flippers on your feet, doing web design with InDesign is like swimming with hiking boots on your feet....
- I've never understdood the hate or reluctance to use Fireworks. Interface is intuitive, makes smaller sliced files. Ive been using it since version 2.Josev
- been using it since version 2.Josev
- LOVE fireworks.. maybe the fear is the learning curve, as everyone "knows photoshop"vaxorcist
InDesign can work really well for web design, especially CMS websites. I wouldn't use it for a site that requires a lot of graphic design (in the sense of heavy use of graphics integrated with the content cuz you'll end up using photoshop for image manipulation so might as well stay in there) but anything corporate or typographic it's definitely a great tool.
Problem is, I've not met a single dev that can handle INDD files.
Question I have for you Eskema: if you have a style, like a drop shadow, on an object. How do you export that to a PNG for the web from IND? In Ps you can just make a smart object, select, copy, new file, paste, save for web.
I have no problems with using any software, I use them all. I need to use several because each serve it's purpose. And for layouts, ID is far superior. I'm not saying that while using it, I won't touch PS or AI. That's just stupid and limitating. I just cringe everytime I see someone say ID is for print and can't do web. Yes it can, yes it does. And it all depends on the job in question.
Like what you show, it doesn't make much sense to do it in ID. That's fine, there's others more fit to the task. But doing The New Yorker site (http://www.newyorker.com) in PS is equally retarded.
I tried to grasp FW but I wasn't confortable with it. That doesn't mean it's bad software, just that I'm bad with it and don't have a lot of time to experiment with it for now (I'm sure I'll be tempted again somewhere down the road)...
The point of this is, know your tools, know your team, use the tool you're confortable with (and the rest of the team) and use it well, if it doesn't do the job, switch to a more fitting one. Or maybe don't do stuff you shouldn't be doing at all because it makes us all look bad...
(the you's in this text do not refer to anyone in particular)